Search books

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses detailed runtime behavior: result limit (default 10), num_found field, paging with offset, and the structure of each result (best_edition with ISBNs and edition_key). It also explains how to use edition_key with get_book_by_id. Since annotations already mark it as readOnly and openWorld, the description adds substantial value by explaining pagination and result format, going beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage constraints, then result details. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: what it searches, how to combine criteria, and what results look like including chaining. Efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers the essential aspects: search criteria, result limit, pagination, result structure (best_edition), and how to access full records via edition_key. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. The coverage is comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of the 12 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by listing searchable criteria, explicitly stating the requirement of at least one criterion, and explaining how combining them narrows results. It also clarifies the meaning of limit and offset in the context of num_found and paging, which is not fully captured in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States exactly what it does: 'Search Open Library across titles, authors, subjects, places, people, publishers and ISBNs.' The verb 'search' plus the specific resource ('Open Library') and the enumerated fields make the purpose unambiguous, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_book_by_id (which retrieves specific records) by focusing on search across multiple criteria.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: 'Provide at least one search criterion' and 'combining several narrows the search.' It also explains paging with offset and chaining to get_book_by_id via edition_key. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like get_book_by_title, though the chaining hint implies an alternative path. The guidance is strong but not fully explicit about exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.